The government must support leaseholders in all affected buildings regardless of height
Whilst it is heartening to see the Lords fight for a common sense solution to the plight of leaseholders, the fact that the Fire Safety Bill remains a Bill and is not yet Law sends worrying signals over the understanding of fire issues by those who sit in our elected house and led by the current administration.
We are just a couple of months away from the fourth anniversary of the tragedy of Grenfell, when the issue of combustible cladding surfaced as a problem for leaseholders. The various investigations and inquiries are still unpicking whether the problems arose due to ambiguous and confusing legislation, a broken regulatory system, ignorance or incompetence in the construction sector, or suppliers of building products gaming the system. What the House of Lords has consistently recognised, however, is that whatever the cause, it was of no fault of the leaseholders who continue to face uncertainty despite current government intervention.
The FPA has repeatedly called on the government to support all leaseholders, in all affected buildings regardless of height, with grants to bring this debacle to a close. It should then be down to the government to pursue those responsible through the courts and to ensure justice is done and the money is fully repaid.
This has been going on for too long. It is completely unacceptable that we continue to have people living in buildings which are fundamentally unsafe and leaseholders facing financial ruin because they quite reasonably believed that they were protected by a regulatory system that was fit for purpose and robust.
The FPA continues to press the government to ban the use of combustible materials on all high-risk buildings. This situation is the making of successive governments and it is therefore the responsibility of the current government to act now. The Home Secretary should now accept the Lord’s amendment, enact this overdue legislation and move on.
Retired at None at this time....Ing,FBFSA, FIFPO, MEPS, MIFSM, MAFSM (Rtd). + Tech IOSH (Rtd), MEUFSC, Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Firefighters & Freeman of the City of London, MTWC(Life).
3 年Still not listed to the Expert's...
Director at RGF Support Limited
3 年Isn’t the fundamental point that the manufacturers of the products have lied about the suitability of the product? This must invalidate any contractual agreement. If it has taken this many years for detailed examinations of the claims made by manufactuers, how can any other party now be held responsible for paying for their purposeful misinformation. Some says blatant lies!
HRA Compliance Manager
3 年Jonathan, As much as i simperthise with anyone who is caught up in this whole scandal. Why is it the responsibility of the Government ? All Leaseholders who brought properties that were incorrectly built using non compliant materials should surely be suing their legal representatives who didn't presumably advise them not to buy, the developers, it is far to easy to just the buck on to the Government? What is the reason for saying this situation is the making of the Government? God bless the victims of the Grenfell tragedy ??
architect
3 年“A safe situation is one where risks of injury or property damage are low and manageable.” A “fundamentally unsafe” situation must therefore be one in which risks of injury or property damage are so high as to be approaching certainty (p=1) and also unmanageable (a direct negative implying impossibility of control) I do not see either of those features in the buildings in scope - inability and reluctance to manage otoh does seem obvious.
Compliance & risk software CEO. Media commentator on Building Safety, Risk Management & Regulatory Compliance.
3 年??- everyone is in violent agreement (with the exception of the Government)